ANANGA UDAYA SINGH DEO Vs. RANGA NATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Election Petition, petitioner Ananga Udaya Singh Deo has challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 Ranga Nath Mishra, and respondent No. 3 Manmath Nath Das, as Members of Council of States (hereinafter referred to as "Rajya Sabha") in the election held on 18th June, 1998.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows :-The President of India issued a notification, which was published in the Gazette of India on 30-5-1998, calling upon the Members of the Electoral College of some of the States to elect Members to the Rajya Sabha in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "the Act"). Pursuant to the aforesaid Presidential Notification, the Election Commission by its notification dated 30-5-1998 called upon the elected Members of the Orissa Legislative Assembly to elect three Members to the Rajya Sabha. In consultation with the Government of Orissa, the Election Commission also issued another notification appointing the Secretary of the Orissa Legislative Assembly as the Returning Officer and the Joint Secretary of the Orissa Legislative Assembly as the Assistant Returning Officer for the said election. The Returning Officer (respondent No. 4 herein), in his turn, issued notice of election in Form No. 1 as per the following programme :-

(3.) One of the grievances made by the petitioner is that though he had filed an application before the Returning Officer for supply of certain documents, there was unusual delay in supplying the same to him as he could get the documents only on 8-7-1998. The Returning Officer, in reply, has stated that on 20-6-1998 at 4.30 P.M. he received a request from the petitioner for supply of certain documents. As per the requirements of Rule 93 (2) and (3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, he sent a FAX message on 23-6-1998 seeking permission/direction of the Election Commission for supply of the documents (Copy of the FAX message is at Annexure-1 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). As no intimation was received from the Election Commission, he sent a reminder on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-11 to the written statement of respondent No. 4). Permission of the Election Commission was received on 6-7-1998 (Annexure-III to the written statement), and copies of the documents as requested by the petitioner were supplied to his authorised person Shri G. H. Sar on 8-7-1998. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allegations made by the petitioner in para 2.1 and 2.2 of the Election Petition are not factually correct and legally tenable. Further, such delay, if any, does not affect the process of election by which respondents 1 to 3 had been declared elected as the notification declaring them elected was issued on 18-6-1998.